Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 7[edit]

New world school school of the arts → New World School of the Arts[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted (db-redirtypo & db-author). -- JLaTondre 14:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extra "school" is unnecessary. --MosheA 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've completed the RfD nomination for you by adding the RfD template to the redirect in question. You could list this under speedy deletion criteria G7 instead of RfD by using the {{db-g7}} tag, or an admin could close this under said. BigNate37(T) 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Huh? What is this redirect for? If you remove the second "school" it would be the same of the direct page. Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a redirect from a typo, which are commonly kept and tagged as {{R from misspelling}}. In my opinion, the only question here is whether the typo is plausible or not because it really isn't hurting anything by being there. It's quite clear what it is a typo of, so no confusion or anything. BigNate37(T) 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's possible its for "New World School, School for the arts" (i.e. the "School for the arts" is a department), but how likely is one going to search for that without the ','? SkierRMH 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ivy kellerman[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as CSD R1 by User:Angela.[1] BigNate37(T) 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a dead page. --MosheA 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tagged it as {{db-r1}}, redirects to non-existent pages can be speedied and need not be listed here. In the future, to nominate a redirect for deletion you must place {{rfd}} at the top of the page. BigNate37(T) 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The pie fucker → Jason Biggs[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. I have to agree with Wizardman. -- JLaTondre 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a quote used once with reference to his role in American Pie (film), but nobody would ever use this to search for him so it seems to be nothing but derogatory. James086Talk | Contribs 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a joke. Xiner (talk, email) 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's assume good faith here. It is easy to see someone creating this with the good-natured intent to provide helpful redirection, possibly after searching for a while themselves to find the name of the fellow who did this. That said, I'm not really for or against keeping this redirect—just be careful not to presume ill intent where it is not obvious. BigNate37(T) 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change redirect to American Pie (film). ~ trialsanderrors 06:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would be offended if "sheep shagger" redirected to User:Anthony cfc, so I doubt if Jason Biggs would approve of the redirect. Anthonycfc [T • C] 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it still bother you if you did it in a movie and it was a true description? This makes me wonder whether something like horse groper redirects to Tom Green. BigNate37(T) 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Pie (film), since there is no information about the incident at the target article and it is mentioned quite early on in the film's article. BigNate37(T) 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary redirect. If anybody really needs to find out the guy's name, they can go to American Pie (film). Patstuarttalk|edits 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Pie (film). --- RockMFR 22:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - may be offensive to some users Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not censored, so the offensiveness of content isn't really a deletion criteria—let alone redirects to content that one doesn't really see unless one searches for it or spends time in projectspace. BigNate37(T) 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's unlikely to be typed in.--Wizardman 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Petiole (nest) → Petiole[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. Someone is welcome to make a stub, but in the absence if anyone having attempted to do that, it get's deleted. BigNate37 is correct. Closers are not article writers on demand. As far as a search term, people will search on petiole which will lead them to the dab page containing the link. -- JLaTondre 12:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect to a disambiguation page. As a result, the link from the disambig page redirects back to the same page. The only other page that links to this redirect (paper wasp) therefore goes to the petiole disambig anyway, making the use of petiole (nest) totally unnecessary. Also, no one is likely to do a search for "petiole (nest)". IronChris | (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recreate as stub. It seems to me that this term is worthy of its own page. --- RockMFR 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So fix it. A few people saying it should have an article won't make it an article, just write it and then the RfD discussion is moot. Otherwise, whoever closes this debate is either going to delete the redirect or keep it, or possibly direct it elsewhere. I can't see anyone writing a stub as a part of the RfD closing process. BigNate37(T) 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page looks like a redirect to me. Delete. Xiner (talk, email) 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate as stub as per RockMFR. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see no real problem with recreating as a stub as proposed (though the article is going to be one sentence only), except that there isn't even an article for wasp nests yet, so creating a stub about a part of a wasp nest doesn't seem to me like the right order to go about things. IronChris | (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Christian Life Fellowship → Port Edwards, Wisconsin[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 12:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article on non-notable church re-created as a redirect to the town where it's located. There are many other churches and religious groups with the same name of greater or equal notability, no mention of the church in target page.--Tdl1060 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subtle avoidance of notability rule. Xiner (talk, email) 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Immaculate Heart of Mary Church → Serangoon[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre 13:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted per AFD recreated as a redirect to where it's located. There is no mention of the church in the target page, there are many other churches with the same name that may be more notable.--Tdl1060 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reset to Immaculate Heart. Seriously, this doesn't have to run through RdF. 15 seconds of effort could've found a better target. ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with resetting this redirect to Immaculate Heart as that page does not mention any churches. If the page should be kept at all I think a disambiguation page would be more appropriate than a redirect.--Tdl1060 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Holy Name Church → Birmingham, Michigan[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted per AFD recreated as a redirect to the town where it's located. I found many other churches with the same name which seem to have greater or at least equal notability.--Tdl1060 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Set redirect to Holy Name (disambiguation), where some of the churches are already listed. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Set redirect per trialanderrors reason Ophion 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_7&oldid=1142588247"